One of the world’s most recognised and respected brands today announce it will be entering a team in the new Formula E Championship after signing an agreement with series promoters Formula E Holdings.

Based in the UK, the Virgin Racing Formula E Team will be headed by Team Principal Alex Tai and has the backing of Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson. Both have been involved in a number of pioneering technology projects in aviation, space and more recently racing.

“The launch of the FIA Formula E Championship is exciting news for racing fans but also for those that believe in developing the great electric cars of the future,” said Sir Richard Branson. “The need to create fast, dependable and durable race cars will help to accelerate the sector and showcase electric cars to a large global audience. With races around many famous city centres, I am expecting a lot of spectators, plenty of fun and some sparks flying as the competition hots up.”

Virgin Racing will now be put forward to the FIA for final approval as the ninth of ten teams to enter the new zero emission championship, racing in 10 city-centres around the world. They join IndyCar outfits Andretti Autosport and Dragon Racing, Asia’s China Racing, Super Aguri and Mahindra Racing, and European squads Drayson Racing, e.dams and Audi Sport ABT.

Team Principal Alex Tai is enthusiastic. “I’m absolutely sold on the concept of Formula E and believe that it is a great fit for the Virgin brand. The accessible nature of the series with its races being right in the heart of our great cities, should create a wonderful atmosphere.

The drive to develop new technology appeals to Virgin, which has always been a pioneering organisation. I’ve been fortunate to have been involved in a number of such activities over years, from the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer to Virgin Galactic activities that push technological and human boundaries and capture people’s imagination.

We have hugely exciting plans and over the next nine months will be revealing new parts to our story on a regular basis, so I’d ask fans and the commercial world alike to ‘watch this space.’”

Conceived in 1970 by Sir Richard Branson, Virgin is a leading international investment group which has gone on to grow successful businesses in sectors ranging from mobile telephony, travel, financial services, leisure, music, holidays and health and wellness.

With the calendar announced yesterday, Formula E has just one space left on the grid to fill before we hear the roar whir of the electric motors fire up for battle proper in 2014.

Ford unveils its new Mustang GT today in six cities simultaneously – New York, Dearborn in Michigan, Los Angeles, Shanghai, Sydney and Barcelona. The company hopes the car’s history will appeal to buyers outside the US. Mustangs haven’t officially been sold outside the US since 1979.

Ford’s unveiling of its new Mustang follows revamps of several other famous US cars, like Chrysler’s Challenger (pictured) and Charger as well as General Motors’ Camaro and Corvette. These vehicles are known as “halo cars”. Although they may not sell in large volumes, it’s hoped they will entice consumers to buy other models.

The Mustang went on sale in 1964, the same year as Pontiac’s GTO, built by GM. The GTO (pictured) is considered the first mass-produced “muscle car”. It was created “for somebody who wanted the excitement and thrill of being able to drive a little aggressively“, says Jim Wangers, who led Pontiac’s advertising team at the time.

Ford’s Mustang (pictured) was different from the GTO, and was dubbed a “pony car” – a reference to the car’s iconic horse badge. “[The Mustang] was a remarkable breakthrough in styling, yet it was by Ford’s choice very moderately powered,” explains Mr Wangers. “So the two cars were in a sense competitive but not overlapping.”

The Mustang was meant to appeal to post-war baby boomers looking for a “personal car”. It was immediately popular: by 1966, more than one million Mustangs had been sold, prompting Chevrolet to release a competitor, the Camaro, that year.

Mr Wangers says part of the appeal of the Mustang was that it was iconic, roomy and safe. “While it has an image of fun and excitement and high style, it also has – and this is very critical – image of reliability and dependability,” he says. “What I’m saying in a delicate and slightly restricted way, is that it has a strong appeal to the lady.”

Muscle and pony cars – and their implicit lifestyle – quickly became part of the fabric of US pop culture. The Mustang has made an appearance in over 3,000 TV shows and films, memorably in the Steve McQueen 1968 car chase film Bullitt. The Dodge Charger was featured heavily in the classic US TV show Dukes of Hazzard.

But while there’s no doubt the Mustang, the Corvette, the Camaro, and others are iconic cars in the US, it’s unclear if they will appeal to buyers overseas. “The Corvette has never been much of a success overseas – it’s never been able to make much of a dent in Europe,” says Mr Wangers. GM launched this new Corvette last year.

But Ford thinks the appeal of the Mustang extends to places like China, with its growing middle class. Analysts are optimistic. “The Mustang is an iconic vehicle for Ford, everybody knows that car,” says Edmunds.com senior analyst Michelle Krebs. “I sort of think of it as being Ford’s ambassador around the globe.”

Sniff Petrol explain why with this Mustang – things will be different.

Ford has confirmed the long-awaited new generation Mustang will be officially imported to the UK. As a result, the new model is to be made in right-hand-drive and, for the first time, it will be fitted with a system called ‘steering’.

‘This is the most technically advanced Mustang we’ve ever made,’ said chief engineer Stopp Hammertime. ‘For example, the new ‘steering’ facility takes the circular driver’s grab handle, airbag mount and iPad rest of the previous Mustang and, for the first time, connects it to a series of shafts, pinions and racks in order to permit the driver to take control of the front wheels, thereby allowing them to negotiate road conditions such as ‘cowners’. Am I pronouncing that right? Cornours? Whatever it is you Limeyass people call the parts between straightaways.’

Hammertime also noted that the new Mustang will finally get rid of the solid rear axle of previous generations. ‘That’s right,’ he confirmed. ‘Now we’ve gotta sell the ‘Stang in Yewrope the back axle is gonna have something called ‘inderpenderdent suspendionisation’. I think that’s how it’s pronounced. To be honest with you, on the development team we just called it the Pinko Commie Faggot Axle… WHY ARE YOU SIGHING?’

McLaren boss, Ron Dennis, has joined the British prime minister’s trade delegation to China this week with a view to increasing the presence of the McLaren road car division in China. The first McLaren dealership in China was opened September 12, 2013 and now 8 new cities have been targeted for further McLaren dealership expansion.

Dennis states, “We consider this country to be a core part of the next 50 years of McLaren’s future. McLaren is looking to work closely with Chinese organisations as we seek to develop and expand the entire Group and develop a whole range of businesses in China. In time McLaren anticipates that China will contribute 10% of its global automotive sales, resulting in exports from the UK of over £50m per year.”

TJ13 reported last year there was trouble within the McLaren empire as sales targets had been missed and the Bahraini investors Mumtalakat and Mansour Ojjeh were getting nervous. Ron Dennis made a tangential reference to this at the launch of this year’s MP4-28, “Why am I disappointed? Because we’ve had to grow the business in one of the most difficult economic climates that this country and the world have seen. That’s made it much more challenging.

It has thus far been a massive investment in a difficult market. But I think the path is right. Will we need to put more money into automotive? Yes.”

More worryingly for investors, Dennis explained, “it isn’t going to instantly make money because of the amount of investment that you have to put into it”, and his obsession with the McLaren project is clear when Ron amusingly suggests, “It sounds very flippant but overall I think money’s completely unimportant – unless you don’t have any.”

Whilst in China Dennis has met with delegates from the country’s sovereign wealth fund and other possible investors in a bid to raise the capital to buy out the 25% stake in McLaren Group owned by Mansour Ojjeh’s TAG group. This would give Dennis overall control of the McLaren group.

McLaren have been quick to comment though that, “Mansour Ojjeh has not expressed any desire to sell his shareholding. So it is business as usual for all at McLaren, and we are fully focused on developing our new Formula 1 car so as to improve our on-track performance for the 2014 season.”

Sources close to Dennis have revealed he has been considering becoming more directly involved again with the F1 team in an effort to revive their fortunes. Further, he is unhappy over Whitmarsh’s recent efforts to sign Fernando Alonso because Dennis still holds the Spaniard partially responsible for McLaren being fined $100m (reduced to $50m) over the 2007 ‘spygate’ affair.

Ross Brawn is now a serious contender to replace Whitmarsh as F1 team principal and should Dennis be able to manage the politics or acquire the TAG shareholding, an announcement could be made as early as the weekend of the Monaco GP.

Ron Dennis is known for his obsession with McLaren and he expects loyalty from all who work for the company. Speaking to the FT earlier this year he said, “You cut yourself, you bleed McLaren. We’re about winning, we care about how we win...We want to win with the right principles, the right values. If people don’t want to be part of that and want to go and do different things, then fine.”

In a coded reference to recently departed employees Dennis was as equally uncompromising in his view. “People might think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, but if they get the hosepipe and the lawnmower out, they can easily contribute to making the grass greener their side of the fence”.

Newey: The front wing will be the trickiest bittranslation of the original article atAuto Motor & Sport

Q: Which influence did the tyres have in the first half of the season?

An unusually big one. All the teams, which now claim that they had tailor-made their cars for the [original] 2013 tyres and all based on a single testing session at Brazil at 50° asphalt temperature are either lying to themselves or they are much cleverer than we are. I simply cannot imagine how anyone could have understood those tyres after a single testing session. I think the characteristics of the tyres just fit for some cars randomly and for others they didn’t. That had nothing to do with know-how.

Q: Did the return to the 2012 tyre construction help Red Bull?

It helped, although we already were on a good way to understand the 2013 tyres. Cars with a high rake, like ours, have profited from it, since the 2012 construction allows to lower the front. The higher the rake, the faster you are in highspeed corners.

Q: So what was the problem of the [original] 2013 tyres?

They reacted badly to lateral forces. With a full load of fuel you could not tackle highspeed corners without destroying the tyres. The 2012 construction works much better in those situations and since highspeed corners were strength of our car, we profited from it.

Q: Which influence did the driving style have?

The drivers did understand the tyres fairly well. They had enough experience with them. The key was more or less to adapt the car to the tyres. It was important, not to stress the tyres and even if that was impossible there were still options. You had to concentrate on using the tyres in situations without much load on them. For that there are mechanical and aerodynamical solutions. The tricky bit is to combine those two.

Q: Red Bull struggled the most on tracks which stressed the front tyres. Why?

That was true for the first part of the season. In Shanghai we were nowhere. In Barcelona we had problems, too. In the second half, things got better. Korea is the one track which is probably most demanding for the front tyres and we made a good impression there. One part was that the 2012 construction worked better on our car and the other part was the massive development of the RB9, which would have helped us even with the original tyres.

Q: Some teams claim that after the return to the 2012 construction they had to shift the aerodynamic balance towards the rear. They say it disadvantaged them. How was it for you?

We didn’t have to change our aerodynamic balance, that’s why I can’t comment on the problems of other teams.

Q: There were two exhaust layouts. How much of a compromise was the ramp behind the tailpipes in connection with the Coke bottle shape?

If the exhaust hadn’t been allowed in that place, the side pods would have looked differently. It is a compromise, but a small one. We’ve been using that solution for quite a while now and have refined it again and again, so I can’t say if the other solution is better.

Q: Did Sebastian Vettel’s driving style influence the design of the car? Was he the reason you concentrated on the blown diffuser even more?

I wouldn’t say that he was the driving force behind it. We developed in that direction, because CFD simulations and wind tunnel results confirmed our theories. Our discussions with Vettel and Webber in terms of car development did not influence us one way or the other. In fact Mark Webber was more sensible to aerodynamical changes on the car, so if anything he was to be the bigger influence. But the development of a car is never orientated towards a single driver.

Q: Why was the Red Bull that dominant in Singapore?

That’s difficult to say. I have no idea what the others were doing that day.

Q: Your car gained the most time in slow corners. That’s when there are less exhaust gasses to blow the diffuser. Which influence does the engine management software have?

A big one. It influences driveability, torque distribution and the production of exhaust gasses. Is our engine different from the others? I don’t know, because I know too little about the competing engine designs.

Q: The aerodynamic concept of the Red Bull has dominated F1 since 2009. How much of a danger is there that this might change in 2014?

The biggest problem next year is the narrower front wing. 150 millimetres might not sound like much, but it makes a huge difference as the end plates will now be right before the front tyres.It’s a monumental task to make up for that disadvantage. You have to decide whether to direct the air flow past the front wheels on the outside or the inside. The second challenge is to package in the engine and all its secondary devices. That powertrain is a complex beast. The installation is a bout two or three times as difficult as with the current V8.

Q: Will it still be possible to run with as much rake as you did in the past?

I cannot say yet. We cannot use the exhaust to seal the diffuser anymore. That’s because we only have one tailpipe under the rear wing and the turbo charger uses up much of the exhaust gasses energy. We probably integrated the exhaust into our aerodynamical concept the best, which is why we have the most to lose. On the other hand, I ran my cars with a rake before the exhaust blown diffuser, so I’ll try it again.

Anthony Hamilton has been giving evidence in the High Court in London and is claiming Paul Di Resta’s ‘false’ allegations against him have made it difficult for him to persue his line of work as an F1 driver manager.

Hamilton says he spent “lot of my time and money” pursuing an F1 drive for Di Resta and that, “I had been led to believe that I would be rewarded both financially and with loyalty. Unfortunately this did not happen and I am now no longer managing Paul. As a result I have found it incredibly difficult to find new work in Formula 1 since Paul’s wrongful termination of the driver/manager agreement”.

Di Resta terminated Hamilton as his manager claiming that he had been misled over a multi-million pound deal with energy drinks company Go Fast. Hamilton stated that, “Paul has made allegations of fraud and incompetence against me, which has attracted a lot of bad press and has had a serious effect on my family and my business.

Paul’s allegation is completely unfounded. it has damaged my good reputation in the sport.”

In a stamen of evidence, Di Resta argues, “Anthony simply had insufficient contacts, insufficient staff and resources, was not taking a professional approach to seeking sponsorship for me. He was not discussing any strategy surrounding sponsorship with me … he wholly failed to deliver.”

Di Resta, whose F1 career looks to be now over, stated that Hamilton had told him he was looking at a “top team” for 2013 and added, “Whilst he was talking a good game, he wasn’t actually delivering anything.”

There have been a number of stewarding decisions this year that have brought criticism from F1 fans and participants alike. The most recent were in the final race at Interlagos which solicited significant disapproval from Il Padrino himself.

“I think it was disproportionate and unjust, as was Hamilton’s. If Felipe had stayed in fourth place, we would have been second in the Constructors’ championship. Every so often, the gentlemen who come to the races to act as Stewards make decisions that are a bit ridiculous and anachronistic. One needs to be careful that we maintain credibility, for the work of the teams that invest money and for the drivers who risk their lives”.

It was a very busy day yesterday at the place de Concorde and the FIA managed to find time to discuss the matter. It was affirmed that, “consistency in decision-making during grands prix is at the heart of maintaining credibility”.

There had been a meeting earlier in the year where the stewards and F1 Race Director Charlie Whiting met with the drivers and team representatives who highlighted a number of key issues they believed would help the stewards reach their goal of uniformity in decision-making. One suggestion was that there should be a full review of decisions taken during the year.

The gathering yesterday apparently “considered a number of incidents from during the season, with issues such as drivers leaving the boundaries of the track and possibly gaining an advantage being reviewed, again in a bid to find a consistent approach to ruling on such transgressions”. Unsurprisingly, the FIA do not disclose the outcome of this review and whether any decisions were inappropriate.

Commenting on the meeting, Whiting said, “good communication was a key element in keeping stewards up to date”, adding that their twice-yearly meetings are a critical part of the their duties”.

Staying true to the value of FIA self admiration, Garry Connelly a regular in the chair of the F1, stewards paid tribute to all the FIA staff present at Formula One race meetings, saying that “their dedication was crucial in the smooth operation of events. Whiting, meanwhile, also thanked the F1 media for their co-operation and understanding during the season just gone”.

He concluded, “As a group, the F1 race stewards are clearly determined to continue improving the system of stewarding, which is extremely important to Formula One.”

So no change there then. One way to improve consistency would be to removing from stewarding duties the gin swilling old dodderers who are invited as part of the FIA grace and favour programme and replacing them with full time professionals who attend each race.

The problem with F1’s supremo is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether what he says is considered comment, off the cuff statements, buffoonery or as Il Padrino has suggested delusional ramblings due to the deterioration of his faculties.

During the first week of the Constatin v Ecclestone hearings, questions over Ecclestone’s successor were naturally put to him. He told the media “Christian would be ideal, I would be happy to hold his hand. We could have a transitional period. It needs someone who knows the sport. If someone comes in from outside, a corporate type, I don’t think I could work with them. It wouldn’t last five minutes. People deal with me because they know me. They know I’m straight with them. That’s how it is with Christian. I hope we can do it.”

Yet today Mr. E reveals to CNN that the whole idea was in fact a bit of a joke. “Somebody said to me, ‘What happens when you go, what’s going to happen?’ Christian walked past and I said: ‘What about him? He is a good guy.’

Clearly Red Bull and Horner didn’t realise this as they issued a statement on the Red Bull website saying that Christian was flattered by this suggestion but was fully focused on his role as team principal and the long term future of Red Bull Racing.

The fact is whoever Ecclestone recommends must have green light from Ferrari boss Luca de Montezemolo. Speaking to RAI, Il Padrino mocked the Horner idea saying, “Ecclestone sees Horner as his successor? As the years go by, he more and more enjoys making jokes and I’m happy he still has the desire to do so.”

This is clearly part of one of the many deals Ecclestone has done over the years to keep Ferrari happy and the prospectus for the defunct F1 float states, “We must obtain the written consent of Ferrari prior to the appointment of any person as our chief executive officer if, within the past five years, he or she has held a senior executive office or an ownership interest of 5% or more in any Team or automobile manufacturer which either owns more than a 5% interest in a Team or is a supplier of engines to a Team.”

To this end the prospectus also reveals there is a F1 nomination committee, whose responsibility is to “review and recommend candidates for appointments to the Board …” and surprise, surprise -.Luca sits on that committee.

So Montezemolo was not joking when he told RAI, “We have reached an agreement with Ecclestone and the FIA and we are the only team with the right of veto: more political weight than that is impossible! We are aware of our strength in Formula 1, which without us, would be completely different.”

It appears this influence even holds sway over the International Corporate Gamblers who own the commercial rights to F1.

Yesterday I didn’t bother to answer the question, I was not in the know of all the facts. I do know that the photo most probably is taken at the Belgian Grand Prix, Spa-Francorchamps (Belgian flag and the countryside give it away to me), the year must be post-’67 and seeing the added side-pods my estimate would be ’69 or ’70. The drivers, I just don’t know. Haha!

Jochen Rindt dominated the 1970 season up until Monza (five wins from ten races) when he died in a practice accident after he hit the crash barriers at Parabolica. A contributing factor to the death was that he preferred not to wear crotch straps and so submarined in the accident and suffered serious throat injuries.

Rindt actually won the WDC that year (posthumously, obviously). Jackie Ickx should have won it in his Ferrari. Ickx won two of the last three races after Monza, but could only manage 4th at Watkins Glen after a broken fuel line cost him dearly during the race.

This post is sponsored by my curiosity and the usually accurate info at Wikipedia.

Strangely, it was the fact that he had just started wearing seatbelts that killed him and cut his throat. Also, the poorly attached guardrails at Monza didn’t help him, hence his car nose sliding under it and Rindt sliding in the cockpit.

Track was indeed old Spa, abandoned sometime in the mid-70s, rebuilt in the early 80s. Amon was unlucky not to win that race, if I remember correctly. Did he trail home Pedro Rodriguez’ BRM in this race? His last victory I think too, for he soon perished as well in a sports car race.

Is this a trick question? The 1971 race was cancelled after the organisers couldn’t make the improvements demanded. In 1979 the shorter circuit we are now familiar with was introduced with the GP returning in 1983. The 1970 GP was a high speed thriller won by Pedro Rodriguez in a BRM.

People who come here can still drive a big part of the old circuit. As it is a normale road trough the woods and villages of the ardennes. If done it a few times. Gives you a bit off an insight on how crazy it was to drive there in a race car.

If Dennis takes over at Macca and if he gains control of F1 and if he brings back Brawn, then I’m happy that he’s not fond of Alonso. Don’t want him back, although I do want a top class driver. Who knows, maybe Lewis will return, he hasn’t burnt his bridges there.

It’ll be amazing if we have Vandoorne driving for McLaren in 2015, a young driver that has driven FSR (F1 series in online simracing), so basically anyone could have driven against him online (it’s on his YouTube videos next to his karting videos), yet now he’d be near the front in F1.

Lauda’s posturing aside, I always felt (with no compelling evidence, admittedly) the Lewis’ move to Merc had more to do with Brawn (and Nico). If Merc fail to deliver and Brawn does wind up at Macca then I could easily see Lewis wanting to make the move back. Depends on Ron, really, and whether or not that fence could be mended.

Well, I don’t think that Ron and Lewis are on bad terms any more. The recent quotes about ‘seeds’ and ‘deep roots’ show that they both feel that Lewis will always be part of McLaren’s DNA.
Given Alonso’s past with the team and Vettel’s move to Ferrari at some point, it would all depend on how (i) Magnussen, Vandoorne, and (ii) the 2014 Merc, turn out.
Why wouldn’t Ron want a Brawn/Honda/Lewis partnership?

Ron said publicly earlier in the year that lewis had put down deep roots in McLaren and will always be a member of the McLaren family. I think they spoke privately and at length over the summer break, I’m sure I read Lewis had made reference to it.

To be clear, Dennis is in charge of Macca, but Whitmarsh is in charge of the F1 team and reports to Dennis.

Ironic, the headline of today’s article, “Dennis seeks to regain control of McLaren” given that in 2007 it became clear that Dennis had lost control of his F1 team. That whole 100m / 50m fine for Spygate was due to personal assurances from Dennis to the FIA that Macca was not using the Ferrari data. It was very sad to learn that Macca was using Ferrari data. It was a naked, embarrassing example of his failing leadership abilities (to put it kindly). It was no coincidence that Whitmarsh (then COO) stepped up to make things right and proper with the FIA for 2008, as Dennis’ reputation was permanently tarnished.

In light of today’s story on Ron Dennis here, as well as the reason why Newey left Macca a few years ago, I do wonder if Brawn could be attracted to Macca. I recall Hamilton’s insightful comment about how Mercedes AMG seemed more like a regular race team, whereas Macca’s HQ atmosphere is more NASA than race team.

I’d imagine that Brawn could become more attracted to another British team… Early days on that front perhaps…

I don’t understand why there isn’t a requirement to fully document the background to each penalty in a race, setting out what facts/evidence was considered and the argument(s) in favour of the decision. This would give the teams, drivers and public a clear view into what happened – plus it would, of course, provide clear and documented precedent for subsequent decisions which must surely drive more consistency – even if a later race incident took a different decision, as a result of (clearly documented) disagreement with the precedent.

I understand that stewards et al are very busy at races, but it can’t be hard to do this with the addition of a “court reporter”.

In fact, didn’t the FIA once say they were going to this? And then failed.

The Race Stewards’ documents describe the received complaint, the particular regulation(s) involved, the evidence they reviewed, their decision and why, as well as the penalty (if any).

It doesn’t appear your complaint as valid, (unless you can be specific in the context of their current system).

This blog’s complaint of consistency seems unsubstantiated as well. Although admittedly this is an area that has improved over the years. But it’s at a fairly high level now.

The one complain that would be valid is that the race director provides particular rules at each race meeting for that particular track and meet in the drivers / team meetings at the track, (such as OK to drift off track on corner exits in India as no advantage is gained, or must not cross particular line of pit entry in Brazil)… those instructions would make it much more enjoyable for spectators if we knew those instructions. Instead we seem to learn of those particular instructions via hearsay from team to reporters to public… But that complaint is not against the stewards, but rather the FIA and Race Director.

Thanks,Vortex, that’s helpful and you’re right – these things ARE documented. (Although I have to say that I couldn’t navigate the FIA site to find these and had to do a Google search).

Having said that, I think the docs are a little light on information – to me, they tend to site the bare bones (in most cases) which doesn’t really help understand the decision-making process. But maybe that’s just me!

Given the ongoing debate at (almost) all levels of the media, I’d say it’s NOT just me… 😉

I think you’re correct… your point is valid and good, that the FIA should work to better illustrate the decision making processes of the race stewards. The Judge had found a nice long article from 2012 on Bernie’s site (Formula1.com) about the technical tools available to the stewards.

But to your point, it would be helpful and clever to see a TV stories and written articles going back to a prior decision, that examines with interviews of each steward how they received notification of a possible violation, how the reacted, how they decided initially, how they resolved any differences of opinion, and how they crafted their written document.

The navigation is pretty horrible on the FIA site for each race. At the start of the 2013 season they had changed to this lay-out, and I was so confused I wasn’t able to find any documentation at all. I too had to search the internet to find someone who had figured it out, and shared the navigation secrets… horrible!

And what would your comment have been if they would’ve won more using their political weight?
Check the F1 history books and find out what Ferrari has done for F1, especially during the FISA/FOCA war, if it wasn’t for Enzo Ferrari F1 as we know it wouldn’t exist.

No i just forgot to mention him, and Max Mosley, without the “Maranello agreement” Balestre would have got his way.
We don’t know how that would’ve turned out of course, but i’ll put my money on Enzo, Bernie and Max any day.

GREAT photo of the Lotus under heavy braking! the depicted transitional “rake” had nothing to do with aero – but everything to do with best-guess compromises in suspension design, chassis dynamics, camber gains, roll center axis tilt windows, natural frequency bump harmonics, tire scrub, compliance vs anti-lift/squat/dive geometries, spring/sway bar rates, etc., etc..
the most beautiful pure race car ever built IMHO. and let us not forget that Cosworth was a frigging DAWG until it hit ~ 6500RPM when all hell cut loose)
I dream of a car like this with a current V-8 churning ~ 350 more HP at double the RPM and engine mapping thru a proper 7 speed box and steering wheel on BIG modern day rubber! imagine what could be accomplished today with third element suspension designs, carbon and other exotic materials (mostly for safety), 7 post shakers, super computers, simulators, etc..
just please leave off the wings, barge boards, vortex generators, DRS, tea trays/floors/diffusers/ground effects/moveable skirts/fan-assisted suckers/monkey seats, exhaust blowing, bla bla bla 🙂

thanx again. you bet I liked it! brought back many an old memory from Mosport and the Glen…

Seb and a few others in the RB camp are very fixated on “big balls”:) funny, quirky, and rightfully so!

what better way to bring back sexy, bad-ass, awe-inspiring and sustainable hero-worship racing at the pointed end of motor sport than to concentrate ALL efforts on any and everything other than aero whispering CFD computer programs and scale model wind tunnels??

Ali, Tyson, and Stallone would have been more aerodynamically efficient if they were subjected to this crap too, but I would argue the “show”, the “punch”, the profits, and decades long fan passion would have suffered immensely! likely to the point of early extinction of the sport.

Seb very pointedly talked about that inner undeniable,instinctual feeling he got when visiting his very first F1 race – I suggest many millions heavily related to those initial feelings over the decades. I also suspect many millions more would relate if all the current narcissistic big wigs of F1 got the hell outta friggin’ Dodge and allowed common sense Business 101 to prevail…

may or may not continue the rant. from an old school, old fart fan of racin’ F1, and tj13 !